2. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant driven a car while under the influence of alcohol, and the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the heavy liability in light of the content of the crime, and the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was high.

However, it is reasonable to respect the defendant's confession of the crime of this case and reflects the defendant's mistake in depth, that the defendant is the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment so far, that the distance of the defendant's driving was shorter, and that our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has its unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first trial, and that the first deliberation sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The unfavorable circumstances against the defendant, which was recognized, do not constitute a change in special circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, and do not seem to be unfair because the court's punishment against the defendant is too uneasible, considering all circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing in the argument of this case, such as age, character, and environment.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.